Global VR Developer Report: 80% Difficult to Make Games Profitable

Since VR set off the first wave of capital and public opinion during the period from 2014 to 2015, relevant content has always been the focus of the cycle.

In terms of the game industry alone, people also have some inherent impressions about VR. For example, practitioners mostly develop game content and their ability to commercialize at the current stage... What is the specific situation behind these impressions?

Some time ago, UBM (GDC, VRDC, and Gamasutra) released a VRDC VR/AR innovation report, which reports data from visits to virtual reality, augmented reality, and mixed reality practitioners (VR/AR/MR). The number of people exceeds 600.

According to its introduction - "The detailed data in the report is intended to provide a valuable perspective for the study of this rapidly growing industry. The survey has some interesting findings, such as the obvious use of HTC Vive and Oculus Rift. Upgraders and practitioners are generally optimistic about the prospects of VR but also understand the difficulties of the early stage of the industry."

The gamma data has been partially compiled for the report, hoping to provide some more comprehensive and realistic references. (Unless otherwise specified, VR/AR/MR are collectively referred to as VR.)

Are most VR practitioners playing games?

The acceptance of the fastest new mass industry for new technology is often an entertainment industry. This is also typical of the game industry's acceptance of VR. In all industries, the game seems to be most closely tied to VR.

So are the facts and this public impression close?

According to the VRDC survey report, about 78% of the interviewees are engaged in game and entertainment-related development work, with the emphasis placed on education and training, followed by 27%. Brand experience, industrial/product design, and medical and health directions are also covered, accounting for 14% to 20%, while real estate, travel, and other areas have significantly less coverage.

The statistical results of practitioners are basically consistent with the mainstream impressions of the general public. At present, most VR practitioners are engaged in the related development of game entertainment. Due to the diversity and vividness of its display form, the direction in which VR-related technologies were first applied is the entertainment industry such as games, movies and television. This may be analogous to the revolutionary drive that 3D technology brings to the film and video and gaming industries. When 3D technology is not yet mature, the film and video and game industries are the first to test the water industry. Technology has improved the performance of videogames for all to see. At the same time, the demand for its product performance also reversed the progress of related technologies. VR technology also has the opportunity to play the same role.

Platform distribution: Vive is the most popular and the MR platform is late

After understanding the direction of development, the next question will follow - which one or several of the most popular development platforms for VR practitioners?

"When we asked this question to the interviewees, the answers they provided were generally consistent with the results of last year's innovation report," wrote the VRDC report.

According to the survey, the most popular platform for developers is HTC Vive, with 56% of the interviewees doing related content development; followed by Oculus Rift, about 49%. The Samsung Gear VR accounted for 33% of the total. Is the most popular mobile VR platform. Google’s Google Cardboard and Google Daydream accounted for 24% compared to the first group.

It is worth mentioning that the PSVR, which is often compared with the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift, is only ranked 6th, with the proportion being 19%, but not entering Top5. The PSVR, which is widely used at the user level, has not been generally welcomed by developers. This may also have a certain relationship with the PlayStation's binding.

Overall, Vive and Rift are becoming more mainstream choices. "Compared to the statistics of the previous year, the popularity of HTC Vive and Oculus Rift has slightly increased among developers. The Vive, Oculus and Gear VR selections last year were 49%, 43% and 34% respectively." VRDC's The original wrote this way.

The survey also mentioned the MR platform Magic Leap for the first time. Prior to this, Magic Leap was a little exposed as a mixed reality development platform with little exposure. About 20 developers (3%) said that they are This platform is developed. From this point of view, compared with VR and AR, MR is currently still in a more elementary stage. Whether it is a support platform or a developer, it lacks a sufficient foundation.

In addition, from the survey data, the current distribution ratio of the platform will not change substantially in the future.

When asked about "the next product release platform", the choice of developer groups is basically the same. The difference in preference between Vive and Rift has been reduced to 52% and 50% respectively. The percentage of Samsung’s choices has dropped significantly, and the PlayStation has remained basically unchanged.

It should be noted here that these two issues concerning platform preferences are multiple options, which means that a considerable proportion of developers are biased toward the development of multi-platform support. At the same time, the proportion of developers that are biased toward monolithic monolithic development is also rising. According to this year's statistics, about 31% of respondents stated that their next product will be mono-platform exclusive, which is about 10% higher than last year.

On the issue of "On which platform will the next product be exclusively released," platform preferences have been distributed differently. Vive's choice of 35%, Rift's fell to 13%, and Gear VR, the two were Vive opened a clear gap.

The source of funding has improved slightly and the commercialization process has been slow

In addition to the differences between platforms, funding sources are also a significant limitation of the current VR development, which is also common in small and medium-sized development teams. Many independent team members have personally invested in the development of personal cases we have heard from time to time. For mass developers, is the restriction of funding sources severe and what constitutes it?

VRDC statistics show that the status of fund sources for practitioners has improved slightly compared to last year. The data shows that the proportion of developers who currently rely on the company’s existing funds is about 40%, relying on personal funds 31%, and relying on customer revenue 21%. In last year's statistics, 49% of developers relied mainly on personal capital investment, which accounted for a significant decline. The company's capital and customer income also increased compared to 33% and 16% last year. These data can more or less prove the advancement of the commercialization process of the VR industry, but the speed of this process is obviously not optimistic.

This year, the "Angel round investment" accounted for 10% of the VR funding source, which was a drop of 3% compared with last year, and venture investment was flat with last year's 10%. Now the developers of the VR industry are still in the stage of needing large amounts of funds to maintain operations and promote R&D and upgrading. The unclear commercialization effect and the cool capital will affect the development speed of this new industry.

"Or will be in the early stages of the VR industry

Please click on the input image

With regard to the development restrictions mentioned above, most VR practitioners have a relatively direct perception. Therefore, a total of 77% of respondents believe that VR/AR/MR also needs to undergo a medium to long-term development process to achieve better profitability. Only 16% of developments remain optimistic about this and believe that the VR industry will achieve optimistic returns in the short term. Another 8% is negative and believes that VR cannot be profitable.

According to some of the interviews provided by VRDC, among the optimistic people, some of them have relatively developed products/services and can directly benefit developers. Those who believe that VR earnings are biased towards the medium term believe that "the current number of VR platforms is huge, but the experience modes that can be provided are generally similar and there is not much innovation." This part of the developer believes that in the next few years, VR practitioners will have the opportunity to create more diverse content experiences to meet different needs. If this can be achieved, there will be an opportunity to achieve profitability within a long period of time.

Developers who believe that a long-term profitable cycle is realized have relatively close attention to public opinion such as the media. This group of people believe that the VR market is still far from a mature stage, and there is no clear paradigm or guideline for emerging industries. The hardware and other elements need a long-term process of precipitation and exploration.

Interestingly, despite the fact that hundreds of developers have different developments in the VR profit cycle, 95% of respondents believe that the VR industry will become a long-term, long-lasting market, which is also related to last year's visit. The proportion is exactly the same.

There is also a point that the AR/MR practitioner's views may differ from those of the general public. When asked if "AR/MR will win more market share than VR in long-term development," 77% of respondents Gives a positive forecast. This may be the trend of talent and capital flow within the industry in the coming years.

Watch & Apple Airtag Screen Protector

TPU Watch Screen Protector, Transparent ​Watch Screen Protector, Watch Screen Protector Case, Apple Watch Case, Apple Watch Case Protector, Apple Watch Protective Case

Shenzhen Jianjiantong Technology Co., Ltd. , https://www.jjtscreenprotector.com